A discussion on unborking the in-game economy

1235

Comments

  • MerusMerus Posts: 656
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
  • Lord_FrodoLord_Frodo Posts: 2,304
    Yoshi said:
    “They could drop the amount of gold you get from loot etc, imagine killing a dragon for 5gp”
    I am sure Gold Sellers would just LOVE your idea, now I wonder why you would suggest that.
  • poppspopps Posts: 3,974
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
  • UrgeUrge Posts: 1,230
    Yeah because stealing is all the rage. 
  • SethSeth Posts: 2,904
    edited March 2023
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    The price difference between steal and tactics would never be the same. Given the same supply, Tactics has higher demand which drives prices higher.

    We all agree prices are driven by supply and demand is always correct. Fine that it is not the only reason if we include overall gold in the game. But it is enough to explain why shard bound items has opposite effect as the concept probably makes sense, only if they block character transfer totally, so Gold is confined as well. 

    Since we are talking about gold, the gold should be shard bound instead. Which then defeat the purpose of character transfer because there are personal reasons to move between shards than to worry about game economy.

    Since gold is not shard bound, overall price of goods around the world would also fluctuate according to the total gold in the game. Increases in gold take time to widen the gap between the rich and poor. 

    To deal with inflation, the solution should be about Gold Sink to make the rich pay and remove their gold. Paying for sub with Gold is definitely an attractive gold sink. Or buying UO store items with gold.


    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 
    ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
  • SethSeth Posts: 2,904
    edited March 2023
    @Yoshi
    As one of the most filthy rich players in this forum, what are you willing to pay for your platinum?

    Otherwise we may need a new currency, maybe call it palladium and worth 100 platinums.  :D
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 
    ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
  • PawainPawain Posts: 9,230
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    This has the same logic as your make crafting easier arguments.  How does the game know that the player doing a spawn wants a Tactics scroll?  Your opinion may be you want that instead of a Stealth scroll.  But when you have a game with many templates the game does not know what the player wants. Therefore all scrolls have an equal chance to appear.

    Ideally you could trade scrolls with other players. But as Richard Garriott and the original developers found, you can not predict or prepare for what your players will do and desire.

    So, we are greedy and want more for certain items.

    Get off the easy bus and play.  I have over 100 hungry pets, and you are the one wanting an easy button, not me.  How does that reflect on your own selfishness and greed?
    Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
  • MerusMerus Posts: 656
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    I guess you think Ferrari should just make enough vehicles so they would cost the same as a Honda. It’s just silly (and frankly a bit lazy) thinking.

    PLAYERS have decided the relative worth of the items, not the game mechanics.  Now it seems you want the developers to alter the game mechanics to make it easier for you.  Never mind that entire line of thinking negates having anything to work toward and achieve in the game…
  • poppspopps Posts: 3,974
    Seth said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    The price difference between steal and tactics would never be the same. Given the same supply, Tactics has higher demand which drives prices higher.

    We all agree prices are driven by supply and demand is always correct. Fine that it is not the only reason if we include overall gold in the game. But it is enough to explain why shard bound items has opposite effect as the concept probably makes sense, only if they block character transfer totally, so Gold is confined as well. 

    Since we are talking about gold, the gold should be shard bound instead. Which then defeat the purpose of character transfer because there are personal reasons to move between shards than to worry about game economy.

    Since gold is not shard bound, overall price of goods around the world would also fluctuate according to the total gold in the game. Increases in gold take time to widen the gap between the rich and poor. 

    To deal with inflation, the solution should be about Gold Sink to make the rich pay and remove their gold. Paying for sub with Gold is definitely an attractive gold sink. Or buying UO store items with gold.


    The price difference between steal and tactics would never be the same. Given the same supply, Tactics has higher demand which drives prices higher.

    Yet, a 120 Stealing and a 120 Tactics with a highly different "demand factor" have the exact same spawn chance (offer) for the RNG....

    See where the problem is ?

    To my opinion, items which are in higher demand from players should have a higher spawn chance as compared to items which are in lower demand from players.... this, would "balance out" demand and offer "per item" and thus stabilize prices because, to an increased demand, there would be an increased offer (higher spawn chances).

    Otherwise, the result, as we are seeing, is in-game inflation because of scarcity of offer (insufficient spawn) in presence of a higher demand.
  • poppspopps Posts: 3,974
    Pawain said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    This has the same logic as your make crafting easier arguments.  How does the game know that the player doing a spawn wants a Tactics scroll?  Your opinion may be you want that instead of a Stealth scroll.  But when you have a game with many templates the game does not know what the player wants. Therefore all scrolls have an equal chance to appear.

    Ideally you could trade scrolls with other players. But as Richard Garriott and the original developers found, you can not predict or prepare for what your players will do and desire.

    So, we are greedy and want more for certain items.

    Get off the easy bus and play.  I have over 100 hungry pets, and you are the one wanting an easy button, not me.  How does that reflect on your own selfishness and greed?
    But when you have a game with many templates the game does not know what the player wants. 

    First, since we are using as an example 120 Stealing and 120 Tactics Powerscrolls, one obvious consideration that could be made is that Stealing can only be used by players' characters while Tactics can also be used by pets which increases, and many folds, the demand.

    Then, while Stealing is restrained to only 1 skill, and a profession that many players do not use, Tactics is necessary to several skills, archery, throwing, macing, swordsmanship, fencing which further increases the demand.

    I mean, it does not need a crystal ball to understand why stealing 120s might be in low demand and why tactics 120s might be in a much higher demand....

    Yet, their spawn chances are set to be the exact same..... THIS, to my opinion, is what is wrong.
  • poppspopps Posts: 3,974
    edited March 2023
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    I guess you think Ferrari should just make enough vehicles so they would cost the same as a Honda. It’s just silly (and frankly a bit lazy) thinking.

    PLAYERS have decided the relative worth of the items, not the game mechanics.  Now it seems you want the developers to alter the game mechanics to make it easier for you.  Never mind that entire line of thinking negates having anything to work toward and achieve in the game…
    No, I am saying something different.

    There is items which players NEED in the game for their better enjoyment and enhancement of the game, like Powerscrolls, Armor, Artifacts like Cameos etc. and items which are not imortant or necessary to play the game but are more of a "status symbol" thing.

    Well, those items which players need to play the game and enhance their gameplay in it should be readily available, items which are only for Deco or not meaningfull to play the game but only function as a status symbol, those could be rare and expensive as we may want.

    Powerscrolls, Armor, Artifacts like Cameos etc. should never be too hard to get in the game or expensive to purchase for players.

    Deco rares, titles and the likes, not necessary for playing improvement and enhancement, but only working as an in-game status symbol, could be as rare and expensive as we may want them to be.

    That is how I see it.
  • popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    if you think 120 stealing and 120 tactics have the same chance to drop you should do more spawns. 
  • SethSeth Posts: 2,904
    edited March 2023
    popps said:
    Seth said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    The price difference between steal and tactics would never be the same. Given the same supply, Tactics has higher demand which drives prices higher.

    We all agree prices are driven by supply and demand is always correct. Fine that it is not the only reason if we include overall gold in the game. But it is enough to explain why shard bound items has opposite effect as the concept probably makes sense, only if they block character transfer totally, so Gold is confined as well. 

    Since we are talking about gold, the gold should be shard bound instead. Which then defeat the purpose of character transfer because there are personal reasons to move between shards than to worry about game economy.

    Since gold is not shard bound, overall price of goods around the world would also fluctuate according to the total gold in the game. Increases in gold take time to widen the gap between the rich and poor. 

    To deal with inflation, the solution should be about Gold Sink to make the rich pay and remove their gold. Paying for sub with Gold is definitely an attractive gold sink. Or buying UO store items with gold.


    The price difference between steal and tactics would never be the same. Given the same supply, Tactics has higher demand which drives prices higher.

    Yet, a 120 Stealing and a 120 Tactics with a highly different "demand factor" have the exact same spawn chance (offer) for the RNG....

    See where the problem is ?

    To my opinion, items which are in higher demand from players should have a higher spawn chance as compared to items which are in lower demand from players.... this, would "balance out" demand and offer "per item" and thus stabilize prices because, to an increased demand, there would be an increased offer (higher spawn chances).

    Otherwise, the result, as we are seeing, is in-game inflation because of scarcity of offer (insufficient spawn) in presence of a higher demand.
    I actually think the Dev reduces the spawn rate of certain desirable consumables, but I could be wrong.

    E.g. I seem to get more useless refinements. 

    In any case the topic is about economy and gold, and an attractive and sexy Gold Sink is the cure.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 
    ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 393
    edited March 2023
    Helper said:
    Finally, some means for players to sell items above 175m on shards that they do not have a home should be introduced. This can either be an increase in the price cap for non-commission vendors, or to introduce a 3rd option at the New Magincia vendors to have an auctioneer (3 safes per vendor).

    you dont have to own the house to use auction safes there.  just have to place the auction safe.  so if you have a friend, or advertise that your looking for a house to place auction safes,  house owner makes you a co-owner, you place the auction safes, house owner removes co-owner.  you can use the auction safes you placed in a house you dont own.
  • MerusMerus Posts: 656
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    popps said:
    Merus said:
    Grimbeard said:
    Merus said:
    Seth said:
    Prices are always driven by supply and demand, period.
    This is only half right.  Availability of gold is #1 in the cause of inflation.  If you hold the gold supply constant, prices may change, but that is not inflation… it’s a change in relative value compared to other products in the market.
    Let's look at the only closed economy is it healthy? 
    I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China?

    I don’t believe I commented on whether it was good or bad, only that price points move up and down based on supply/demand within the confines of the available money supply.

    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    To Yoshi’s point, it doesn’t make tons of sense to just reduce the amount of gold you get killing monsters, nor do I think just wiping gold from player’s accounts is reasonable.  If you want to see a economy where the price of items is more relatable to the gold from hunting, there needs to be a significant but voluntary gold sink that confers status without impacting game play.
    In todays UO market a 120 tactics scroll has a higher value than say a 120 stealing scroll.  Both have roughly the same chance to spawn, but  there is a plentiful supply relative to demand for the stealing scroll.  If all gold in the game was suddenly reduced by a factor of 10,000, the price of a tactics scroll would come down and so would the stealing scroll… but I would wager the relative value of the two scrolls would remain about the same.

    I agree.

    Thus, the availability for items on higher demand, say the 120 Tactics Powerscroll, should be increased as compared to the availability of the 12 Stealing Powerscroll so as to bring it more in line with what its demand might be.... and thus lower its high price in doing so.

    That is, the spawn of high end items should be more "dynamic" and not be the same across the board but, instead, reflect their higher need from the players' base.

    This, if we want to fight inflation which hurts so much the game, and articularly new and returning players who can be intimidated by extremely high prices of items which yet they need, if they want to progress in their gameplay.

    That is at least how I see it.
    Absolutely not.  There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Said another way, there is nothing wrong with the current value of a 120 Tactics, a blaze cu or an Alt castle… the problem is the value of a piece of gold… there is so much gold in the system that it’s virtually worthless… thus we end up pricing things of high value in the billions of gold.

    If you want to fight inflation you need to fix the value of gold.
    There is nothing wrong with certain items being more expensive because they are more rare or more useful.  That pricing function is not about inflation.

    Up to a point, to my opinion.

    That 120 Tactics could cost a bit more then 120 Stealing well, yes, even a few times mkay.....

    But that the delta in between a 12 Stealing and a 120 Tactics Powerscroll might be like what it is now which, looking at current Atlantic prices (110M vs. 30k), is about 3,600+ times as expensive, that, at least to my opinion, is not reasonable and should be addressed.
    Like I said before… if you think the most desired items should be easy pickings, you might enjoy playing test instead of production shards.
    Again, 3,600+ times as compared to a low cost 120 powerscroll (stealing) that has the exact same chance to spawn in place of a 120 Tactics, goes way beyond a reasonable higher price, to my opinion.

    This has nothing to do with easy picking, it has to do with BALANCE.

    But, apparently, having a game well Balanced out seems, at least to my impression, not to be something of priority to some.....
    I guess you think Ferrari should just make enough vehicles so they would cost the same as a Honda. It’s just silly (and frankly a bit lazy) thinking.

    PLAYERS have decided the relative worth of the items, not the game mechanics.  Now it seems you want the developers to alter the game mechanics to make it easier for you.  Never mind that entire line of thinking negates having anything to work toward and achieve in the game…
    No, I am saying something different.

    There is items which players NEED in the game for their better enjoyment and enhancement of the game, like Powerscrolls, Armor, Artifacts like Cameos etc. and items which are not imortant or necessary to play the game but are more of a "status symbol" thing.

    Well, those items which players need to play the game and enhance their gameplay in it should be readily available, items which are only for Deco or not meaningfull to play the game but only function as a status symbol, those could be rare and expensive as we may want.

    Powerscrolls, Armor, Artifacts like Cameos etc. should never be too hard to get in the game or expensive to purchase for players.

    Deco rares, titles and the likes, not necessary for playing improvement and enhancement, but only working as an in-game status symbol, could be as rare and expensive as we may want them to be.

    That is how I see it.
    Basic armor and weapons should be easily available.  Every character starts with the ability to GM 7 skills with a few points to spare.

    A 120 tactics is end game level skill.  Cameos are end game level loot.  End game level content should not be cheap or easily attainable just because some people feel unlucky (or more likely just lazy).

    If you do enough champ spawns, eventually you’ll end up with a 120 tactics, either through binding lower scrolls or a lucky 120 drop.  If you do enough roofs, eventually you’ll get a cameo.  There are scroll and equipment options available till you reach that goal.
  • Petra_FydePetra_Fyde Posts: 1,382
    Prices are set by players, greedy players mostly.  Tactics 120s are no harder to get than they've always been, but the price shot up because the demand increased.
    Green thorns will be needed for the event. Are they any harder to grow than they've always been? No, but the prices have become ridiculous. Vendor search on Origin had them priced at 500k each!! 
    The devs can't do much against that kind of problem. 

    No matter what the prices are and what the gold level is, there will always be players who would rather buy their way to what they want than make any effort to get it themselves. But doing that, you're not PLAYING the game, and what's the point of a game if you don't PLAY it!

    I play to get what I want, and when I succeed, then I have a sense of achievement.  I don't play to build a bank account either. Getting rich isn't an end game for me, enjoying my play time is. I don't have, and never will have, a single plat. I sort of undermine the 'economy' by giving stuff away instead of selling it.  Most of the people I play with do likewise. 
  • AmberWitchAmberWitch Posts: 667
    I guess it comes down to what kind of person you are. Do you feel better when you've given someone
    Yoshi said:
    “Got me thinking though.

    There was a thread before saying uogold should be a crypto currency.

    What if it was then, broadsword could get lots of the gold from vendor fees or whatever then convert to real money…

    We would literally be crypto farming for them”
    Essentially those that farm gold for the gold sellers are already doing this. Those that buy gold are supporting it. lol

  • YoshiYoshi Posts: 3,322
    edited March 2023
    " @popps let me ask you, what's the difference in your damage output with 110 tactics (i throw all 110s in the trash) & 10 anatomy, vs 120 tactics 0 anatomy.

    And my follow up question will be, you NEED this for PvM because?"
    Posts on this account have been pre filtered from personal comment or opinion in an effort to suppress conservative views in order to protect the reader.
  • Why do you throw all 110’s away? Scroll Binders are amazing.

    110 stealing, stealth, throwing, fencing, mace fighting? Sure. Even Necro/Spirit Speak. But everything else? Bind those suckers up!

    Or, sell them. I sell sets of 110 pet scrolls easily on my vendors.
    ~ Jennifer-Marie

    "Insanity is a naturally occurring mutation; humanity has just managed to perfect it." -- JMK [[me]]
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,330
    edited March 2023
    Helper said:
    The in-game economy seems to be broken to me; do other players share this sentiment?

    If you do agree, please respond with your thoughts on:
    1. What game mechanism contributes to this?
    2. What suggestions do you have for how to change the mechanism?
    Please refrain from making comments/suggestions that attack actions of players that are beyond the control of the developers (e.g. purchasing gold with RLM, price gouging, etc.). The goal is to brainstorm fixes that can be implemented to the game itself to improve the health of the economy.

    While suggestions may have a negative effect on your preferred playstyle,
    please limit the scope of your feedback to the effect itself without attacking a commenter.

     Yes - the economy is an issue, it is mainly newer, less active or returning players who will notice this.  For those who say, it's always ok for prices to go up and up, I don't agree with this concept. Yes a small amount, but not like it has.

    For me - the number 1 game mechanism that led to this - is Trammel dropping loot on monsters, this has allowed endless scripted farming in a zero risk environment. If you think about it - traders transferring and selling power-scrolls, real life traders etc etc, none of those can operate, if they were not backed up by the ability to buy and use phenomenal amounts of gold that have been generated ingame. All the other points players complain about, are the symptoms, this is the cause.

    From the very beginning - Trammel monsters should never have dropped any loot of value - ie gold or armour - they should have dropped deco items only - but this ship has sailed now, you cannot block Trammel now maybe, because as people have said - if we restrict gold now - the gold sellers profit who are sitting on plats ready to sell. Trammel should have been for housing, socialising, crafting, training, and deco items, gold should only have dropped in Felucca.

    In terms of the Trading economy - I still maintain the best solution would be for 1 single joint united Vendor Search, that plugged into all servers and worked across all servers, everyone could put goods into it, and everyone could buy from it. Make it commission based for sure - then there is a gold sink, based on items that sell.

    What would this do - it would give maximum retail buying and selling power to everyone ingame. You would not have to transfer servers just to trade. Prices would remain the lowest and most competitive possible, Players could play from any shard they chose. Transfer Shields then, would mainly be based upon genuine player movement, and wanting to switch for a genuine reason such as friends or pvp.

    Shard only items just need to have this tag removed. This creates a local isolated economy effect, that in fact drives prices up way higher than they need to be, as a. Farmers don't bother to collect items on that shard because it is not worth it for them - so there are never going to be enough items.

    Onto gold selling - the most obvious item is game-time. So the loop is something like, UO gold for gametime, players get to play for free, gold seller bought the gametime for rl cash, gets lots of uo gold to sell. Now I don't really have an issue with players buying gametime for rl cash - in fact that is quite cool. So now the resellers are selling back gold and items for cash to players, making a profit - well the fact they are doing so well, points to quite a successful game - but I just think it is a shame Broadsword themselves are not making the money they could be from the game. So do we even really want to stop the gold-sellers - not in my opinion, they are not the worst thing, you can choose to use them or not. 

    But what you can do, is make the UO trading market in-game, more palatable. Remove the top end price restrictions on Vendor Search, they are already out of date, they will always go out of date - 175m is not so much these days.

    Find ways to take Chunks of Gold out of the game - so much of the game is about bringing gold into the game, and that's been happening for years - not a problem in itself, but find a way to take chunks out. Insurance isn't really doing it anymore, is it, we are all so rich, we've negated that one.

    Edit - I've just thought about it - Game-time - If UO Store sold gametime for UO Gold... they would knock out the resellers, and bring the economy down, as huge amounts would get sucked out. If UO Store also sold other ingame items for gold...
    And back to my Gold Sink ideas thread - Item Bless Deeds, Clean Item deeds please :)



  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,330
    Prices are set by players, greedy players mostly.  Tactics 120s are no harder to get than they've always been, but the price shot up because the demand increased.
    Green thorns will be needed for the event. Are they any harder to grow than they've always been? No, but the prices have become ridiculous. Vendor search on Origin had them priced at 500k each!! 
    The devs can't do much against that kind of problem. 

    No matter what the prices are and what the gold level is, there will always be players who would rather buy their way to what they want than make any effort to get it themselves. But doing that, you're not PLAYING the game, and what's the point of a game if you don't PLAY it!

    I play to get what I want, and when I succeed, then I have a sense of achievement.  I don't play to build a bank account either. Getting rich isn't an end game for me, enjoying my play time is. I don't have, and never will have, a single plat. I sort of undermine the 'economy' by giving stuff away instead of selling it.  Most of the people I play with do likewise. 
    I'm going to agree, and disagree here :)
    Why your post, just because I noticed it above mine.

    Yes, there is a lot of greed, the greed is really evident when the price of something goes up, but never goes down when supply is increased, and traders maintain higher prices for their own benefit.

    But it's not all about greed, the Green Thorns is an example, this was just obvious, sure, nothing at all has changed about green thorns - except no-one was growing them, as they had little purpose. So there was very little supply, then we are told an event type that has recently had the best rewards is about to require these - everyone wants them, there is not enough supply to match demand. All the PvPers switch their garden beds from Orange Plants to Green Plants but there is a lead time. The fact the prices have risen to the figures they have, just shows how much gold there is ingame, and what players are willing to spend, this isn't really greed related, it is pure supply and demand, a supply funnel was created, causing a spike, which will fix when demand catches up, and the event finishes. My main point here - it's not all about Greed, it's a pure reflection of how much gold there is available.
  • ValeriaValeria Posts: 97
    edited March 2023
    Some good thoughts in that post... My brain is thinking there's no way UO will ever let you buy subs with game gold... That's probably 99% of their revenue. Without that EA would surely shut it down.  What if you could sink gold by spending plats to age your acct. I'm only 2 years. Can I spend say 2 plat per year and age my acct to 14? 24 plats? Grab the vet rewards but the game still has consistent uninterrupted revenue from my sub? Basically just plats for vet picks which are mostly utility and deco anyways. You could even adjust the price of acct aging upwards on a yearly basis for game inflation..  or down if that gets it under control.

    How angry would you vets be about that? Hahaha... it's a massive gold sink at least and new players who played for gold efficiency could get caught up to the rest of ya. Gold leaves. Nobody is directly hurt by it. EA keeps same revenue stream.
  • GrimbeardGrimbeard Posts: 2,103
    No one has scripted plats worth of gold i think duping to blame mostly involving shard transfers 
  • Arnold7Arnold7 Posts: 1,334
    edited March 2023
    A lot of posts here but a newer player’s bottom line is you have to have a house and vendors, or someone you can trust that will put your stuff on their vendors.  Second, you have to specialize in several areas that provide a good rate of return and learn how to price items so you know when to buy and what you can get for the item, and then each play session spend as much time on vendor search looking for items you can sell at a profit as you do playing the game.  If you do that you will eventually start to make gold and vendor search will become a part of the game as exciting as the game itself.

    I got my seed money selling forged pardons from treasure chests and mysterious fragments when their price was high.  You can also sell drops from events.  But the real gold is in buying and selling.  That might not be true for experienced players that have been playing for twenty years and have a dozen or more accounts, and players good enough to get hundreds of drops at the special events, but it is for most of the rest of us.  Learning how to buy and sell is an as important part of the game as any other.  When I spend the time I make gold.


  • UrgeUrge Posts: 1,230
    I'm still stuck on how Popps hasn't learned to play in the 4+ years he's been registered here. 

    Making gold is so easy but you have to keep your eyes open for new ways. 
  • PawainPawain Posts: 9,230
    Urge said:
    I'm still stuck on how Popps hasn't learned to play in the 4+ years he's been registered here. 

    Making gold is so easy but you have to keep your eyes open for new ways. 
    My best answer is that he has never taken any of the free advice given to him and done it in the game.  Do you realize how many plats worth of pets I Virtually helped him build, The amount of crafted virtual suits he would have.  The amount of virtual encounters he has done.  Plus all the other answers he has received that could be done and used to make UO gold.
    Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
  • Petra_FydePetra_Fyde Posts: 1,382
    Cookie said:
    Prices are set by players, greedy players mostly.  Tactics 120s are no harder to get than they've always been, but the price shot up because the demand increased.
    Green thorns will be needed for the event. Are they any harder to grow than they've always been? No, but the prices have become ridiculous. Vendor search on Origin had them priced at 500k each!! 
    The devs can't do much against that kind of problem. 

    No matter what the prices are and what the gold level is, there will always be players who would rather buy their way to what they want than make any effort to get it themselves. But doing that, you're not PLAYING the game, and what's the point of a game if you don't PLAY it!

    I play to get what I want, and when I succeed, then I have a sense of achievement.  I don't play to build a bank account either. Getting rich isn't an end game for me, enjoying my play time is. I don't have, and never will have, a single plat. I sort of undermine the 'economy' by giving stuff away instead of selling it.  Most of the people I play with do likewise. 
    I'm going to agree, and disagree here :)
    Why your post, just because I noticed it above mine.

    Yes, there is a lot of greed, the greed is really evident when the price of something goes up, but never goes down when supply is increased, and traders maintain higher prices for their own benefit.

    But it's not all about greed, the Green Thorns is an example, this was just obvious, sure, nothing at all has changed about green thorns - except no-one was growing them, as they had little purpose. So there was very little supply, then we are told an event type that has recently had the best rewards is about to require these - everyone wants them, there is not enough supply to match demand. All the PvPers switch their garden beds from Orange Plants to Green Plants but there is a lead time. The fact the prices have risen to the figures they have, just shows how much gold there is ingame, and what players are willing to spend, this isn't really greed related, it is pure supply and demand, a supply funnel was created, causing a spike, which will fix when demand catches up, and the event finishes. My main point here - it's not all about Greed, it's a pure reflection of how much gold there is available.
    Green thorns are not as rare as you might think. I have 12k on Europa, I've had them for over a year :D
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,330
    Valeria said:
    Some good thoughts in that post... My brain is thinking there's no way UO will ever let you buy subs with game gold... That's probably 99% of their revenue. Without that EA would surely shut it down.  What if you could sink gold by spending plats to age your acct. I'm only 2 years. Can I spend say 2 plat per year and age my acct to 14? 24 plats? Grab the vet rewards but the game still has consistent uninterrupted revenue from my sub? Basically just plats for vet picks which are mostly utility and deco anyways. You could even adjust the price of acct aging upwards on a yearly basis for game inflation..  or down if that gets it under control.

    How angry would you vets be about that? Hahaha... it's a massive gold sink at least and new players who played for gold efficiency could get caught up to the rest of ya. Gold leaves. Nobody is directly hurt by it. EA keeps same revenue stream.
    Yes, I think this is a great idea actually. True Vet accounts are dying off over age, new accounts do keep coming through.

    Since the new IDOC system, Vet rewards are being deleted out of the system rapidly, prices of such items as Ethereals has also risen massively.
    There are a lot of really nice Vet reward items, that are now out of reach, and pretty much out of use for most players - I was saying myself in another post - many of these should be taken out of Vet rewards, and distributed into normal gameplay - for example - Statues, should all appear as a very rare drop, on the mob type itself - it would make farming right across the board a lot more fun for Hunters and Collectors.

    I think you are also right - game-time is probably not one they can maybe use as a tool, unless they take off so much on the other Item sales types maybe.

    But I certainly think - some massive UO Store items, your Vet idea, combining the Vendor Search, and a few other things could help.
  • MerusMerus Posts: 656
    Not every new item/dye needs to be added to the UO store.  Create a vendor (like the clean-up reward one) that sells some of these vanity/deco items for serious gold.  Getting a little better economy is just as healthy for the game as micro transactions.
  • SethSeth Posts: 2,904
    edited March 2023
    It's like the Blaze Cu Sidhe, so rare and highly desirable.

    If there is a version of a rideable blaze dragon that can cast attack spells and fireball even when you are riding it. 

    It can cost 10 or 50 plats.

    Another will let you fly over water, cost 80 plats.

    Its easy to remove serious amt of gold.

    Then there is a Super dragon ride that can fly over mountains and sea. 250 plats.
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 
    ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
Sign In or Register to comment.